What Saith the Scripture?
http://www.WhatSaithTheScripture.com/
presents
THE COMING PRINCE
BY
SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
1841-1918
Includes All Charts, Tables, and Footnotes Published In "The Coming Prince"
WStS Note: The original Prefaces to the Tenth and Fifth Editions are placed at
the end of the book, for continuity's sake, in the belief that the reader will be
better introduced to "The Coming Prince" by Anderson's initial remarks
in Chapter 1.
Reformatted by Katie Stewart
To avoid broken links, due to file length, please wait for the page to
load completely
before selecting ANY link below.
Thanks.
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: Introductory
CHAPTER 2: Daniel And His Times
CHAPTER 3: The King's Dream And The Prophet's Visions
CHAPTER 4: The Vision By The River Of Ulai
CHAPTER 5: The Angel' s Message
CHAPTER 6: The Prophetic Year
CHAPTER 7: The Mystic Era Of The Weeks
CHAPTER 8: "Messiah The Prince"
CHAPTER 9: The Paschal Supper
CHAPTER 10: Fulfillment Of The Prophecy
CHAPTER 11: Principles Of Interpretation
CHAPTER 12: Fullness Of The Gentiles
CHAPTER 13: Second Sermon On The Mount
CHAPTER 14: The Patmos Visions
CHAPTER 15: The Coming Prince
PREFACES
APPENDICES
1. Chronological Treatise And Tables
2. Miscellaneous: Who And When
Artaxerxes Longimanus & The Chronology Of His Reign / Date Of The Nativity /
Continuous Historical System Of Prophetic Interpretation / The Ten Kingdoms / Chronological
Diagram Of The History Of Judah
3. A Retrospect And A Reply
.
CHAPTER I. Back to Top
INTRODUCTORY
TO living men no time can be so solemn as "the living present," whatever
its characteristics; and that solemnity is immensely deepened in an age of progress
unparalleled in the history of the world. But the question arises whether these days
of ours are momentous beyond comparison, by reason of their being in the strictest
sense the last? Is the world's history about to close? The sands of its destiny,
are they almost run out, and is the crash of all things near at hand?
Earnest thinkers will not allow the wild utterances of alarmists, or the vagaries
of prophecy-mongers, to divert them from an inquiry at once so solemn and so reasonable.
It is only the infidel who doubts that there is a destined limit to the course of
"this present evil world." That God will one day put forth His power to
ensure the triumph of the good, is in some sense a matter of course. The mystery
of revelation is not that He will do this, but that He delays to do
it. Judged by the public facts around us, He is an indifferent spectator of the unequal
struggle between good and evil upon earth.
And how can such things be, if indeed the God who rules above is almighty and
all-good? Vice and godlessness and violence and wrong are rampant upon every side,
and yet the heavens above keep silence. The infidel appeals to the fact in proof
that the Christian's God is but a myth. [1]
The Christian finds in it a further proof that the God he worships is patient
and longsuffering– "patient because He is eternal," longsuffering because
He is almighty, for wrath is a last resource with power. But the day is coming when
This is not a matter of opinion, but of faith. He who questions it has no claim
whatever to the name of Christian, for it is as essentially a truth of Christianity
as is the record of the life and death of the Son of God. The old Scriptures teem
with it, and of all the writers of the New Testament there is not so much as one
who does not expressly speak of it. It was the burden of the first prophetic utterance
which Holy Writ records; (Jude 14) and the closing book of the sacred Canon, from
the first chapter to the last, confirms and amplifies the testimony.
The only inquiry, therefore, which concerns us relates to the nature of the crisis
and the time of its fulfillment. And the key to this inquiry is the Prophet Daniel's
vision of the seventy weeks. Not that a right understanding of the prophecy will
enable us to prophesy. That is not the purpose for which it was given. [2]
But it will prove a sufficient safeguard against error in the study. Notably
it will save us from the follies into which false systems of prophetic chronology
inevitably lead those who follow them. It is not in our time only that the end of
the world has been predicted. It was looked for far more confidently at the beginning
of the sixth century. All Europe rang with it in the days of Pope Gregory the Great.
And at the end of the tenth century the apprehension of it amounted to a general
panic. "It was then frequently preached on, and by breathless crowds listened
to; the subject of every one's thoughts, every one's conversation." "Under
this impression, multitudes innumerable," says Mosheim, "having given their
property to monasteries or churches, traveled to Palestine, where they expected Christ
to descend to judgment. Others bound themselves by solemn oaths to be serfs to churches
or to priests, in hopes of a milder sentence on them as being servants of Christ's
servants. In many places buildings were let go to decay, as that of which there would
be no need in future. And on occasions of eclipses of sun or moon, the people fled
in multitudes for refuge to the caverns and the rocks." [3]
And so in recent years, one date after another has been confidently named
for the supreme crisis; but still the world goes on. A.D. 581 was one of the first
years fixed for the event, [4]
1881 is among the last. These pages are not designed to perpetuate the folly
of such predictions, but to endeavor in a humble way to elucidate the meaning of
a prophecy which ought to deliver us from all such errors and to rescue the study
from the discredit they bring upon it.
No words ought to be necessary to enforce the importance of the subject, and yet
the neglect of the prophetic Scriptures, by those even who profess to believe all
Scripture to be inspired, is proverbial. Putting the matter on the lowest ground,
it might be urged that if a knowledge of the past be important, a knowledge of the
future must be of far higher value still, in enlarging the mind and raising it above
the littlenesses produced by a narrow and unenlightened contemplation of the present.
If God has vouchsafed a revelation to men, the study of it is surely fitted to excite
enthusiastic interest, and to command the exercise of every talent which can be brought
to bear upon it.
And this suggests another ground on which, in our own day especially, prophetic study
claims peculiar prominence; namely, the testimony it affords to the Divine character
and origin of the Scriptures. Though infidelity was as open-mouthed in former times,
it had its own banner and its own camp, and it shocked the mass of mankind, who,
though ignorant of the spiritual power of religion, clung nevertheless with dull
tenacity to its dogmas. But the special feature of the present age – well fitted
to cause anxiety and alarm to all thoughtful men – is the growth of what may be termed
religious skepticism, a Christianity which denies revelation – a form of godliness
which denies that which is the power of godliness. (2 Timothy 3:5)
Faith is not the normal attitude of the human mind towards things Divine, the earnest
doubter, therefore, is entitled to respect and sympathy. But what judgment shall
be meted out to those who delight to proclaim themselves doubters, while claiming
to be ministers of a religion of which FAITH is the essential characteristic?
There are not a few in our day whose belief in the Bible is all the more deep and
unfaltering just because they have shared in the general revolt against priestcraft
and superstition; and such men are scarcely prepared to take sides in the struggle
between free thought and the thraldom of creeds and clerics. But in the conflict
between faith and skepticism within the pale, their sympathies are less divided.
On the one side there may be narrowness, but at least there is honesty; and in such
a case surely the moral element is to be considered before a claim to mental vigor
and independence can be listened to. Moreover any claim of the kind needs looking
into. The man who asserts his freedom to receive and teach what he deems truth, howsoever
reached, and wheresoever found, is not to be lightly accused of vanity or self-will.
His motives may be true, and right, and praiseworthy. But if he has subscribed to
a creed, he ought to be careful in taking any such ground. It is not on the side
of vagueness that the creeds of our British Churches are in fault, and men who boast
of being freethinkers would deserve more respect if they showed their independence
by refusing to subscribe, than by undermining the doctrines they are both pledged
and subsidized to defend and teach.
But what concerns us here is the indisputable fact that rationalism in this its most
subtle phase is leavening society. The universities are its chief seminaries. The
pulpit is its platform. Some of the most popular religious leaders are amongst its
apostles. No class is safe from its influence. And if even the present could be stereotyped,
it were well; but we are entered on a downward path, and they must indeed be blind
who cannot see where it is leading. If the authority of the Scriptures be unshaken,
vital truths may be lost by one generation, and recovered by the next; but if that
be touched, the foundation of all truth is undermined, and all power of recovery
is gone. The Christianized skeptic of today will soon give place to the Christianized
infidel, whose disciples and successors in their turn will be infidels without any
gloss of Christianity about them. Some, doubtless, will escape; but as for the many,
Rome will be the only refuge for those who dread the goal to which society is hastening.
Thus the forces are marshaling for the great predicted struggle of the future between
the apostasy of a false religion and the apostasy of open infidelity. [5]
Is the Bible a revelation from God? This is now become the greatest and most
pressing of all questions. We may at once dismiss the quibble that the Scriptures
admittedly contain a revelation. Is the sacred volume no better than a lottery
bag from which blanks and prizes are to be drawn at random, with no power of distinguishing
between them till the day when the discovery must come too late! And in the present
phase of the question it is no less a quibble to urge that passages, and even books,
may have been added in error to the Canon. We refuse to surrender Holy Writ to the
tender mercies of those who approach it with the ignorance of pagans and the animus
of apostates. But for the purpose of the present controversy we might consent to
strike out everything on which enlightened criticism has cast the shadow of a doubt.
This, however, would only clear the way for the real question at issue, which is
not as to the authenticity of one portion or another, but as to the character and
value of what is admittedly authentic. We are now far beyond discussing rival theories
of inspiration; what concerns us is to consider whether the holy writings are what
they claim to be, "the oracles of God." [6]
In the midst of error and confusion and uncertainty, increasing on every side,
can earnest and devout souls turn to an open Bible, and find there "words of
eternal life"? "The rational attitude of a thinking mind towards the supernatural
is that of skepticism." [7]
Reason may bow before the shibboleths and tricks of priestcraft– "the
voice of the Church," as it is called; but this is sheer credulity. But if GOD
speaks, then skepticism gives place to faith. Nor is this a mere begging of
the question. The proof that the voice is really Divine must be absolute and conclusive.
In such circumstances, skepticism betokens mental or moral degradation, and faith
is not the abnegation of reason, but the highest act of reason. To maintain that
such proof is impossible, is equivalent to asserting that the God who made us cannot
so speak to us that the voice shall carry with it the conviction that it is from
Him; and this is not skepticism at all, but disbelief and atheism. "It pleased
God to reveal His Son in me," was St. Paul's account of his conversion. The
grounds of his faith were subjective, and could not be produced. In proof to others
of their reality he could only appeal to the facts of his life; though these were
entirely the result, and in no sense or degree the basis, of his conviction. Nor
was his case exceptional. St. Peter was one of the favored three who witnessed every
miracle, including the transfiguration, and yet his faith was not the result of these,
but sprang from a revelation to himself. In response to his confession,
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,"
the Lord declared,
Nor, again, was this a special grace accorded only to apostles.
was St. Peter's address to the faithful generally. He describes them as "born again by the Word of God." So also St. John speaks of such as
is the kindred statement of St. James. (James 1:18).
Whatever be the meaning of such words, they must mean something more than arriving
at a sound conclusion from sufficient premises, or accepting facts upon sufficient
evidence. Nor will it avail to urge that this birth was merely the mental or moral
change naturally caused by the truth thus attained by natural means. The language
of the Scripture is unequivocal that the power of the testimony to produce this change
depended on the presence and. operation of God. Pages might be filled with quotations
to prove this, but two may surface. St. Peter declares they preached the Gospel
and St. Paul's words are still more definite. "Our Gospel came not: unto
you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Ghost." [8]
And if the new birth and the faith of Christianity were thus produced in the
case of persons who received the Gospel immediately from the Apostles, nothing less
will avail with us who are separated by eighteen centuries from the witnesses and
their testimony. God is with His people still. And He speaks to men's hearts, now,
as really as He did in early times; not indeed through inspired Apostles, and still
less by dreams or visions, but through the Holy Writings which He Himself inspired;
[9] and as the result believers
are "born of God," and obtain the knowledge of forgiveness of sins and
of eternal life. The phenomenon is not a natural one, resulting from the study of
the evidences; it is supernatural altogether. "Thinking minds,"
regarding it objectively, may, if they please, maintain towards it what they deem
"a rational attitude;" but at least let them own the fact that there are
thousands of credible people who can testify to the reality of the experience here
spoken of, and further let them recognize that it is entirely in accordance with
the teaching of the New Testament.
And such persons have transcendental proof of the truth of Christianity. Their faith
rests, not on the phenomena of their own experience, but on the great objective truths
of revelation. Yet their primary conviction that these are Divine truths does
not depend on the "evidences" which skepticism delights to criticize, but
on something which skepticism takes no account of. [10]
"No book can be written in behalf of the Bible like the Bible itself. Man's
defenses are man's word; they may help to beat off attacks, they may draw out some
portion of its meaning. The Bible is God's word, and through it God the Holy Ghost,
who spake it, speaks to the soul which closes not itself against it." [11]
But more than this, the well-instructed believer will find within it inexhaustible
stores of proof that it is from God. The Bible is far more than a textbook of theology
and morals, or even than a guide to heaven. It is the record of the progressive revelation
God has vouchsafed to man, and the Divine history of our race in connection with
that revelation. Ignorance may fail to see in it anything more than the religious
literature of the Hebrew race, and of the Church in Apostolic times; but the intelligent
student who can read between the lines will find there mapped out, sometimes in clear
bold outline, sometimes dimly, but yet always discernible by the patient and devout
inquirer, the great scheme of God's counsels and workings in and for this world of
ours from eternity to eternity.
And the study of prophecy, rightly understood, has a range no narrower than this.
Its chief value is not to bring us a knowledge of "things to come," regarded
as isolated events, important though this may be; but to enable us to link the future
with the past as part of God's great purpose and plan revealed in Holy Writ. The
facts of the life and death of Christ were an overwhelming proof of the inspiration
of the Old Testament. When, after His resurrection, He sought to confirm the disciples'
faith,
But many a promise had been given, and many a prophecy recorded, which seemed to be lost in the darkness of Israel's national extinction and Judah's apostasy. The fulfillment of them all depended on Messiah; but now Messiah was rejected, and His people were about to be cast away, that Gentiles might be taken up for blessing. Are we to conclude then that the past is wiped out for ever, and that God's great purposes for earth have collapsed through human sin? As men now judge of revelation, Christianity dwindles down to be nothing but a "plan of salvation" for individuals, and if St. John's Gospel and a few of the Epistles be left them they are content. How different was the attitude of mind and heart displayed by St. Paul! In the Apostle's view the crisis which seemed the catastrophe of everything the old prophets had foretold of God's purposes for earth, opened up a wider and more glorious purpose still, which should include the fulfillment of them all; and rapt in the contemplation, he exclaimed,
True prophetic study is an inquiry into these unsearchable counsels, these deep
riches of Divine wisdom and knowledge. Beneath the light it gives, the Scriptures
are no longer a heterogeneous compilation of religious books, but one harmonious
whole, from which no part could be omitted without destroying the completeness of
the revelation. And yet the study is disparaged in the Churches as being of no practical
importance. If the Churches are leavened with skepticism at this moment, their neglect
of prophetic study in this its true and broader aspect has done more than all the
rationalism of Germany to promote the evil. Skeptics may boast of learned Professors
and Doctors of Divinity among their ranks, but we may challenge them to name a single
one of the number who has given proof that he knows anything whatever of these deeper
mysteries of revelation. The attempt to put back the rising tide of skepticism is
hopeless. Indeed the movement is but one of many phases of the intense mental activity
which marks the age. The reign of creeds is past. The days are gone for ever when
men will believe what their fathers believed, without a question. Rome, in some phase
of its development, has a strange charm for minds of a certain caste, and rationalism
is fascinating to not a few; but orthodoxy in the old sense is dead, and if any are
to be delivered it must be by a deeper and more thorough knowledge of the Scriptures.
These pages are but a humble effort to this end; but if they avail in any measure
to promote the study of Holy Writ their chief purpose will be fulfilled. The reader
therefore may expect to find the accuracy of the Bible vindicated on points which
may seem of trifling value. When David reached the throne of Israel and came to choose
his generals, he named for the chief commands the men who had made themselves conspicuous
by feats of prowess or of valor. Among the foremost three was one of whom the record
states that he defended a tract of lentiles, and drove away a troop of the Philistines.
(2 Samuel 23:11, 12)? To others it may have seemed little better than a patch of
weeds, and not worth fighting for, but it was precious to the Israelite as a portion
of the divinely-given inheritance, and moreover the enemy might have used it as a
rallying ground from which to capture strongholds. So is it with the Bible. It is
all of intrinsic value if indeed it be from God; and moreover, the statement which
is assailed, and which may seem of no importance, may prove to be a link in the chain
of truth on which we are depending for eternal life.
.
CHAPTER II. Back to Top
DANIEL AND HIS TIMES
"DANIEL the prophet." None can have a higher title to the name,
for it was thus Messiah spoke of him. And yet the great Prince of the Captivity would
himself doubtless have disclaimed it. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the rest, "spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost;" (2 Peter 1:21) but Daniel uttered no
such "God-breathed" words. [1]
Like the "beloved disciple" in Messianic times, he beheld visions,
and recorded what he saw. The great prediction of the seventy weeks was a message
delivered to him by an angel, who spoke to him as man speaks with man. A stranger
to prophet's fare [2]
and prophet's garb, he lived in the midst of all the luxury and pomp of an
Eastern court. Next to the king, he was the foremost man in the greatest empire of
antiquity; and it was not till the close of a long life spent in statecraft that
he received the visions recorded in the latter chapters of his book.
To understand these prophecies aright, it is essential that the leading events of
the political history of the times should be kept in view.
The summer of Israel's national glory had proved as brief as it was brilliant. The
people never acquiesced in heart in the Divine decree which, in distributing the
tribal dignities, entrusted the scepter to the house of Judah, while it adjudged
the birthright to the favored family of Joseph; [3]
and their mutual jealousies and feuds, though kept in check by the personal
influence of David, and the surpassing splendor of the reign of Solomon, produced
a national disruption upon the accession of Rehoboam. In revolting from Judah, the
Israelites also apostatized from God; and forsaking the worship of Jehovah, they
lapsed into open and flagrant idolatry. After two centuries and a half unillumined
by a single bright passage in their history, they passed into captivity to Assyria;
[4] and on the birth of
Daniel a century had elapsed since the date of their national extinction.
Judah still retained a nominal independence, though, in fact, the nation had already
fallen into a state of utter vassalage. The geographical position of its territory
marked it out for such a fate. Lying half-way between the Nile and the Euphrates,
suzerainty in Judea became inevitably a test by which their old enemy beyond their
southern frontier, and the empire which the genius of Nabopolassar was then rearing
in the north, would test their rival claims to supremacy. The prophet's birth fell
about the very year which was reckoned the epoch of the second Babylonian Empire.
[5] He was still a boy at
the date of Pharaoh Necho's unsuccessful invasion of Chaldea. In that struggle his
kinsman and sovereign, the good king Josiah, took sides with Babylon, and not only
lost his life, but compromised still further the fortunes of his house and the freedom
of his country. (2 Kings 23:29; 2 Chronicles 35:20)
The public mourning for Josiah had scarcely ended when Pharaoh, on his homeward march,
appeared before Jerusalem to assert his suzerainty by claiming a heavy tribute from
the land and settling the succession to the throne. Jehoahaz, a younger son of Josiah,
had obtained the crown on his father's death, but was deposed by Pharaoh in favor
of Eliakim, who doubtless recommended himself to the king of Egypt by the very qualities
which perhaps had induced his father to disinherit him. Pharaoh changed his name
to Jehoiakim, and established him in the kingdom as a vassal of Egypt (2 Kings 23:33-35;
2 Chronicles 36:3, 4).
In the third year after these events, Nebuchadnezzar, Prince Royal of Babylon, [6] set out upon an expedition
of conquest, in command of his father's armies; and entering Judea he demanded the
submission of the king of Judah. After a siege of which history gives no particulars,
he captured the city and seized the king as a prisoner of war. But Jehoiakim regained
his liberty and his throne by pledging his allegiance to Babylon; and Nebuchadnezzar
withdrew with no spoil except a part of the holy vessels of the temple, which he
carried to the house of his god, and no captives save a few youths of the seed royal
of Judah, Daniel being of the number, whom he selected to adorn his court as vassal
princes. (2 Kings 24:1; 2 Chronicles 36:6, 7; Daniel 1:1, 2) Three years later Jehoiakim
revolted; but, although during the rest of his reign his territory was frequently
overrun by "bands of the Chaldees," five years elapsed before the armies
of Babylon returned to enforce the conquest of Judea. [7]
Jehoiachin, a youth of eighteen years, who had just succeeded to the throne,
at once surrendered with his family and retinue, (2 Kings 24:12) and once more Jerusalem
lay at the mercy of Nebuchadnezzar. On his first invasion he had proved magnanimous
and lenient, but he had now not merely to assert supremacy but to punish rebellion.
Accordingly he ransacked the city for everything of value, and "carried away
all Jerusalem," leaving none behind "save the poorest sort of the people
of the land." (2 Kings 24:14)
Jehoiachin's uncle Zedekiah was left as king or governor of the despoiled and depopulated
city, having sworn by Jehovah to pay allegiance to his Suzerain. This was "King
Jehoiachin's captivity," according to the era of the prophet Ezekiel, who was
himself among the captives. (Ezekiel 1:2)
The servitude to Babylon had been predicted as early as the days of Hezekiah; (2
Kings 20:17) and after the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy respecting it, Jeremiah
was charged with a Divine message of hope to the captivity, that after seventy years
were accomplished they would be restored to their land. (Jeremiah 29:10) But while
the exiles were thus cheered with promises of good, King Zedekiah and "the residue
of Jerusalem that remained in the land" were warned that resistance to the Divine
decree which subjected them to the yoke of Babylon would bring on them judgments
far more terrible than any they had known. Nebuchadnezzar would return to "destroy
them utterly," and make their whole land "a desolation and an astonishment."
(Jeremiah 24:8-10; 25:9; 27:3-8) False prophets rose up, however, to feed the national
vanity by predicting the speedy restoration of their independence, (Jeremiah 28:1-4)
and in spite of the solemn and repeated warnings and entreaties of Jeremiah, the
weak and wicked king was deceived by their testimony, and having obtained a promise
of armed support from Egypt, (Ezekiel 17:15) he openly revolted.
Thereupon the Chaldean armies once more surrounded Jerusalem. Events seemed at first
to justify Zedekiah's conduct, for the Egyptian forces hastened to his assistance,
and the Babylonians were compelled to raise the siege and withdraw from Judea. (Jeremiah
37:1, 5, 11) But this temporary success of the Jews served only to exasperate the
King of Babylon, and to make their fate more terrible when at last it overtook them.
Nebuchadnezzar determined to inflict a signal chastisement on the rebellious city
and people; and placing himself at the head of all the forces of his empire, (2 Kings
25:1; Jeremiah 34:1) he once more invaded Judea and laid siege to the Holy City.
The Jews resisted with the blind fanaticism which a false hope inspires; and it is
a signal proof of the natural strength of ancient Jerusalem, that for eighteen months
(2 Kings 25:1-3) they kept their enemy at bay, and yielded at last to famine and
not to force. The place was then given up to fire and sword. Nebuchadnezzar
"slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had
no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age; he
gave them all into his hand. And all the vessels of the house of God, great and small,
and the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king and of
his princes, all these he brought to Babylon. And they burnt the house of God, and
brake down the wall of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and
destroyed all the goodly vessels thereof. And them that had escaped from the sword
carried he away to Babylon, where they were servants to him and his sons, until the
reign of the kingdom of Persia: to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah."
(2 Chronicles 36:17-21)
As He had borne with their fathers for forty years in the wilderness, so for
forty years this last judgment lingered, "because He had
compassion on His people and on His dwelling place." (2 Chronicles 36:15) For
forty years the prophet's voice had not been silent in Jerusalem; "but
they mocked the messengers of God, and despised His words, and misused His prophets,
until the wrath of the Lord arose against His people, till there was no remedy."
[8]
Such is the sacred chronicler's description of the first destruction of Jerusalem,
rivaled in later times by the horrors of that event under the effects of which it
still lies prostrate, and destined to be surpassed in days still to come, when the
predictions of Judah's supreme catastrophe shall be fulfilled. [9]
.
CHAPTER III. Back to Top
THE KING'S DREAM AND THE PROPHET'S VISIONS
THE distinction between the Hebrew and the Chaldee portions of the writings of Daniel
[1] affords a natural division,
the importance of which will appear on a careful consideration of the whole. But
for the purpose of the present inquiry, the book will more conveniently divide itself
between the first six chapters and the last, the former portion being primarily historical
and didactic, and the latter containing the record of the four great visions granted
to the prophet in his closing years. It is with the visions that here we are specially
concerned. The narrative of the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters is beyond
the scope of these pages, as having no immediate bearing upon the prophecy. The second
chapter, however, is of great importance, as giving the foundation of the later visions.
[2]
In a dream, King Nebuchadnezzar saw a great image, of which the head was gold,
the breasts and arms silver, the body brass, the legs iron, and the feet partly iron
and partly potter's ware. Then a stone, hewn without hands, struck the feet of the
image and it fell and crumbled to dust, and the stone became a great mountain and
filled the whole earth. [3]
The interpretation is in these words:
The predicted sovereignty of Judah passed far beyond the limits of mere supremacy among the tribes of Israel. It was an imperial scepter which was entrusted to the Son of David.
Such were the promises which Solomon inherited; and the brief glory of his reign
gave proof how fully they might have been realized, (2 Chronicles 9:22-28) had he
not turned aside to folly, and bartered for present sensual pleasures the most splendid
prospects which ever opened before mortal man. Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great
image, and Daniel's vision in interpretation of that dream, were a Divine revelation
that the forfeited scepter of the house of David had passed to Gentile hands, to
remain with them until the day when "the God of heaven
shall set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed." (Daniel 2:44)
It is unnecessary here to discuss in detail the earlier portions of this prophecy.
There is, in fact, no controversy as to its general character and scope; and bearing
in mind the distinction between what is doubted and what is doubtful, there need
be no controversy as to the identity of the empires therein described with Babylonia,
Persia, Greece, and Rome. That the first was Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom is definitely
stated, (Daniel 2:37, 38) and a later vision as expressly names the Medo-Persian
empire and the empire of Alexander as being distinct "kingdoms" within
the range of the prophecy. (Daniel 8:20, 21) The fourth empire, therefore, must of
necessity be Rome. But it is sufficient here to emphasize the fact, revealed in the
plainest terms to Daniel in his exile, and to Jeremiah in the midst of the troubles
at Jerusalem, that thus the sovereignty of the earth, which had been forfeited by
Judah, was solemnly committed to the Gentiles. [4]
The only questions which arise relate, first to the character of the final
catastrophe symbolized by the fall and destruction of the image, and secondly to
the time of its fulfillment; and any difficulties which have been raised depend in
no way upon the language of the prophecy, but solely upon the preconceived views
of interpreters. No Christian doubts that the "stone cut out without hands"
was typical either of Christ Himself or of His kingdom. It is equally clear that
the catastrophe was to occur when the fourth empire should have become divided, and
be "partly strong and partly brittle." Therefore its fulfillment could
not belong to the time of the first advent. No less clear is it that its fulfillment
was to be a sudden crisis, to be followed by the establishment of "a kingdom
which shall never be destroyed." Therefore it relates to events still to come.
We are dealing here, not with prophetic theories, but with the meaning of plain words;
and what the prophecy foretells is not the rise and spread of a "spiritual
kingdom" in the midst of earthly kingdoms, but the establishment of a kingdom
which "shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms." [5]
The interpretation of the royal dream raised the captive exile at a single
bound to the Grand-Vizier-ship of Babylon, (Daniel 2:48) a position of trust and
honor which probably he held until he was either dismissed or withdrew from office
under one or other of the two last kings who succeeded to Nebuchadnezzar's throne.
The scene on the fatal night of Belshazzar's feast suggests that he had been then
so long in retirement, that the young king-regent knew nothing of his fame. [6] But yet his fame was still so great with older men, that
notwithstanding his failing years, he was once more called to the highest office
by Darius, when the Median king became master of the broad-walled city. [7]
But whether in prosperity or in retirement, he was true to the God of his
fathers. The years in which his childhood in Jerusalem was spent, though politically
dark and troubled, were a period of the brightest spiritual revival by which his
nation had ever been blessed, and he had carried with him to the court of Nebuchadnezzar
a faith and piety that withstood all the adverse influences which abounded in such
a scene. [8]
The Daniel of the second chapter was a young man just entering on a career
of extraordinary dignity and power, such as few have ever known, The Daniel of the
seventh chapter was an aged saint, who, having passed through the ordeal scathless,
still possessed a heart as true to God and to His people as when, some threescore
years before, he had entered the gates of the broad-walled city a captive and friendless
stranger. The date of the earlier vision was about the time of Jehoiakim's revolt,
when their ungovernable pride of race and creed still led the Jews to dream of independence.
At the time of the later vision more than forty years had passed since Jerusalem
had been laid in ruins, and the last king of the house of David had entered the brazen
gates of Babylon in chains.
Here again the main outlines of the prophecy seem clear. As the four empires which
were destined successively to wield sovereign power during "the times of the
Gentiles" are represented in Nebuchadnezzar's dream by the four divisions of
the great image, they are here typified by four wild beasts. [9] The ten toes of the image in the second chapter have their
correlatives in the ten horns of the fourth beast in the seventh chapter. The character
and course of the fourth empire are the prominent subject of the later vision, but
both prophecies are equally explicit that that empire in its ultimate phase will
be brought to a signal and sudden end by a manifestation of Divine power on earth.
The details of the vision, though interesting and important, may here be passed unnoticed,
for the interpretation given of them is so simple and so definite that the words
can leave no room for doubt in any unprejudiced mind. "These
great beasts, which are four, are four kings" (i.e., kingdoms; compare
verse 23), "which shall arise out of the earth; but the saints of the Most High
shall take the kingdom and possess the kingdom for ever." (Verses 17, 18)
The prophet then proceeds to recapitulate the vision, and his language affords an
explicit answer to the only question which can reasonably be raised upon the words
just quoted, namely, whether the "kingdom of the saints" shall follow immediately
upon the close of the fourth Gentile empire. [10]
"Then," he adds, "I would know the truth of the fourth beast,
which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron,
and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue
with his feet; and of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which
came up, and before whom three fell, even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth
that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. I beheld,
and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the
Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and
the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom."
Such was the prophet's inquiry. Here is the interpretation accorded to him in reply.
Whether history records any event which may be within the range of this prophecy is a matter of opinion. That it has not been fulfilled is a plain matter of fact. [12] The Roman earth shall one day be parceled out in ten separate kingdoms, and out of one of these shall arise that terrible enemy of God and His people, whose destruction is to be one of the events of the second advent of Christ.
.
CHAPTER IV. Back to Top
THE VISION BY THE RIVER OF ULAI
"THE times of the Gentiles;" thus it was that Christ Himself described
the era of Gentile supremacy. Men have come to regard the earth as their own domain,
and to resent the thought of Divine interference in their affairs. But though monarchs
seem to owe their thrones to dynastic claims, the sword or the ballot-box, – and
in their individual capacity their title may rest solely upon these, – the power
they wield is divinely delegated, for "the Most High ruleth
in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will." (Daniel 4:25)
In the exercise of this high prerogative He took back the scepter He had entrusted
to the house of David, and transferred it to Gentile hands; and the history of that
scepter during the entire period, from the epoch to the close of the times of the
Gentiles, is the subject of the prophet's earlier visions.
The vision of the eighth chapter of Daniel has a narrower range. It deals only with
the two kingdoms which were represented by the middle portion, or arms and body,
of the image of the second chapter. The Medo-Persian Empire, and the relative superiority
of the younger nation, are represented by a ram with two horns, one of which was
higher than the other, though the last to grow. And the rise of the Grecian Empire
under Alexander, followed by its division among his four successors, is typified
by a goat with a single horn between its eyes, which horn was broken and gave place
to four horns that came up instead of it. Out of one of these horns came forth a
little horn, representing a king who should become infamous as a blasphemer of God
and a persecutor of His people.
That the career of Antiochus Epiphanes was in a special way within the scope and
meaning of this prophecy is unquestioned. That its ultimate fulfillment belongs to
a future time, though not so generally admitted, is nevertheless sufficiently clear.
The proof of it is twofold. First, it cannot but be recognized that its most striking
details remain wholly unfulfilled. [1]
And secondly, the events described are expressly stated to be "in the
last end of the indignation," (Daniel 8:19) which is "the great tribulation"
of the last days, (Matthew 24:21) "the time of trouble" which is immediately
to precede the complete deliverance of Judah. [2]
It is unnecessary, however, further to embarrass the special subject of these
pages by any such discussion. So far as the present inquiry is immediately concerned,
this vision of the ram and the he-goat is important mainly as explanatory of the
visions which precede it. [3]
One point of contrast with the prophecy of the fourth Gentile kingdom demands
a very emphatic notice. The vision of Alexander's reign, followed by the fourfold
division of his empire, suggests a rapid sequence of events, and the history of the
three-and-thirty years that intervened between the battles of Issus and of Ipsus
[4] comprises the full realization
of the
prophecy. But the rise of the ten horns upon the fourth beast in the vision of the
seventh chapter, appears to lie within as brief a period as was the rise of the four
horns upon the goat in the eighth chapter; whereas it is plain upon the pages of
history that this tenfold division of the Roman empire has never yet taken place.
A definite date may be assigned to the advent of the first three kingdoms of prophecy;
and if the date of the battle of Actium be taken as the epoch of the hybrid monster
which filled the closing scenes of the prophet's vision – and no later date
will be assigned to it – it follows that in interpreting the prophecy, we may eliminate
the history of the world from the time of Augustus to the present hour, without losing
the sequence of the vision. [5]
Or in other words, the prophet's glance into the future entirely overlooked
these nineteen centuries of our era. As when mountain peaks stand out together on
the horizon, seeming almost to touch, albeit a wide expanse of river and field and
hill may lie between, so there loomed upon the prophet's vision these events of times
now long gone by, and times still future.
And with the New Testament in our hands, it would betray strange and willful ignorance
if we doubted the deliberate design which has left this long interval of our Christian
era a blank in Daniel's prophecies. The more explicit revelation of the ninth chapter,
measures out the years before the first advent of Messiah. But if these nineteen
centuries had been added to the chronology of the period to intervene before the
promised kingdom could be ushered in, how could the Lord have taken up the testimony
to the near fulfillment of these very prophecies, and have proclaimed that the kingdom
was at hand? [6] He who knows all hearts,
knew well the issue; but the thought is impious that the proclamation was not genuine
and true in the strictest sense; and it would have been deceptive and untrue had
prophecy foretold a long interval of Israel's rejection before the promise could
be realized.
Therefore it is that the two advents of Christ are brought seemingly together in
Old Testament Scriptures. The surface currents of human responsibility and human
guilt are unaffected by the changeless and deep-lying tide of the fore-knowledge
and sovereignty of God. Their responsibility was real, and their guilt was without
excuse, who rejected their long-promised King and Savior. They were not the victims
of an inexorable fate which dragged them to their doom, but free agents who used
their freedom to crucify the Lord of Glory. "His blood be on us and on our children,"
was their terrible, impious cry before the judgment-seat of Pilate, and for eighteen
centuries their judgment has been meted out to them, to reach its appalling climax
on the advent of the "time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation."
[7]
These visions were full of mystery to Daniel, and filled the old prophet's
mind with troubled thoughts. (Daniel 7:28; 8:27) A long vista of events seemed thus
to intervene before the realization of the promised blessings to his nation, and
yet these very revelations made those blessings still more sure. Ere long he witnessed
the crash of the Babylonian power, and saw a stranger enthroned within the broad-walled
city. But the change brought no hope to Judah. Daniel was restored, indeed, to the
place of power and dignity which he had held so long under Nebuchadnezzar, (Daniel
2:48; 6:2) but he was none the less an exile; his people were in captivity, their
city lay in ruins, and their land was a wilderness. And the mystery was only deepened
when he turned to Jeremiah's prophecy, which fixed at seventy years the destined
era of "the desolations of Jerusalem" (Daniel 9:2) So "by prayer and
supplications, with fastings, and sackcloth and ashes," he cast himself on God;
as a prince among his people, confessing their national apostasy, and pleading for
their restoration and forgiveness. And who can read that prayer unmoved?
While Daniel was thus "speaking in prayer' Gabriel once more appeared to him, (Daniel 9:21, See chap. 8:16.) that same angel messenger who heralded in after times the Savior's birth in Bethlehem, – and in answer to his supplication, delivered to the prophet the great prediction of the seventy weeks.
.
CHAPTER V. Back to Top
THE ANGEL' S MESSAGE
SUCH was the message entrusted to the angel in response to the prophet's prayer
for mercies upon Judah and Jerusalem.
To whom shall appeal be made for an interpretation of the utterance? Not to the Jew,
surely, for though himself the subject of the prophecy, and of all men the most deeply
interested in its meaning, he is bound, in rejecting Christianity, to falsify not
only history, but his own Scriptures. Nor yet to the theologian who has prophetic
theories to vindicate, and who on discovering, perhaps, some era of seven times seventy
in Israel's history, concludes that he has solved the problem, ignoring the fact
that the strange history of that wonderful people is marked through all its course
by chronological cycles of seventy and multiples of seventy. But any man of unprejudiced
mind who will read the words with no commentary save that afforded by Scripture itself
and the history of the time, will readily admit that on certain leading points their
meaning is unequivocal and clear.
The first question, therefore, which arises is whether history records any event
which unmistakably marks the beginning of the era.
Certain writers, both Christian and Jewish, have assumed that the seventy weeks began
in the first year of Darius, the date of the prophecy itself; and thus falling into
hopeless error at the very threshold of the inquiry, all their conclusions are necessarily
erroneous. The words of the angel are unequivocal: "From the issuing of the
decree to restore and build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven
weeks and sixty-two weeks." That Jerusalem was in fact rebuilt as a fortified
city, is absolutely certain and undoubted; and the only question in the matter is
whether history records the edict for its restoration.
When we turn to the book of Ezra, three several decrees of Persian kings claim notice.
The opening verses speak of that strange edict by which Cyrus authorized the building
of the temple. But here "the house of the Lord God of Israel" is specified
with such an exclusive definiteness that it can in no way satisfy the words of Daniel.
Indeed the date of that decree affords conclusive proof that it was not the beginning
of the seventy weeks. Seventy years was the appointed duration of the servitude to
Babylon. (Jeremiah 27:6-17; 28:10; 29:10) But another judgment of seventy years'
"desolations" was decreed in Zedekiah's reign, [8] because of continued disobedience and rebellion. As an interval
of seventeen years elapsed between the date of the servitude and the epoch of the
"desolations," so by seventeen years the second period overlapped the first.
The servitude ended with the decree of Cyrus. The desolations continued till the
second year of Darius Hystaspes. [9]
And it was the era of the desolations, and not of the servitude which
Daniel had in view. [10]
The decree of Cyrus was the Divine fulfillment of the promise made to the
captivity in the twenty-ninth chapter of Jeremiah, and in accordance with that promise
the fullest liberty was granted to the exiles to return to Palestine. But till the
era of the desolations had run its course, not one stone was to be set upon another
on Mount Moriah. And this explains the seemingly inexplicable fact that the firman
to build the temple, granted to eager agents by Cyrus in the zenith of his power,
remained in abeyance till his death; for a few refractory Samaritans were allowed
to thwart the execution of this the most solemn edict ever issued by an Eastern despot,
an edict in respect of which a Divine sanction seemed to confirm the unalterable
will of a Medo-Persian king. [11]
When the years of the desolations were expired, a Divine command was promulgated
for the building of the sanctuary, and in obedience to that command, without waiting
for permission from the capital, the Jews returned to the work in which they had
so long been hindered. (Ezra 5:1, 2, 5) The
wave of political excitement which had carried Darius
to the throne of Persia, was swelled by religious fervor against the Magian idolatry.
[12] The moment therefore
was auspicious for the Israelites, whose worship of Jehovah commanded the sympathy
of the Zoroastrian faith; and when the tidings reached the palace of their seemingly
seditious action at Jerusalem, Darius made search among the Babylonian archives of
Cyrus, and finding the decree of his predecessor, he issued on his own behalf a firman
to give effect to it. (Ezra 6)
And this is the second event which affords a possible beginning for the seventy weeks.
[13] But though plausible
arguments may be urged to prove that, either regarded as an independent edict, or
as giving practical effect to the decree of Cyrus, the act of Darius was the epoch
of the prophetic period, the answer is clear and full, that it fails to satisfy the
angel's words. However it be accounted for, the fact remains, that though the "desolations"
were accomplished, yet neither the scope of the royal edict, nor the action of the
Jews in pursuance of that edict, went beyond the building of the Holy Temple, whereas
the prophecy foretold a decree for the building of the city; not the street
alone, but the fortifications of Jerusalem.
Five years sufficed for the erection of the building which served as a shrine for
Judah during the five centuries which followed. [14]
But, in striking contrast with the temple they had reared in days when the
magnificence of Solomon made gold as cheap as brass in Jerusalem, no costly furniture
adorned the second house, until the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, when the
Jews obtained a firman "to beautify the house of the Lord." (Ezra 7:19,
27.) This letter further authorized Ezra to return to Jerusalem with such of the
Jews as desired to accompany him, and there to restore fully the worship of the temple
and the ordinances of their religion. But this third decree makes no reference whatever
to building, and it might be passed unnoticed were it not that many writers have
fixed on it as the epoch of the prophecy. The temple had been already built long
years before, and the city was still in ruins thirteen years afterwards. The book
of Ezra therefore will be searched in vain for any mention of a "commandment
to restore and build Jerusalem." But we only need to turn to the book which
follows it in the canon of Scripture to find the record which we seek.
The book of Nehemiah opens by relating that while at Susa, [15] where he was cup-bearer to the great king, "an honor
of no small account in Persia," [16]
certain of his brethren arrived from Judea, and he "asked them concerning
the Jews that had escaped, which were left of the captivity, and concerning Jerusalem."
The emigrants declared that all were "in great affliction and reproach,"
"the wall of Jerusalem also was broken down, and the gates thereof were burned
with fire." (Nehemiah 1:2) The first chapter closes with the record of Nehemiah's
supplication to "the God of heaven." The second chapter narrates how "in
the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes," he was discharging the
duties of his office, and as he stood before the king his countenance betrayed his
grief, and Artaxerxes called on him to tell his trouble. "Let the king live
for ever," Nehemiah answered, "why should not my countenance be sad, when
the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchers, lieth waste, and the gates thereof
are burned with fire!" "For what dost thou make request?" the
king demanded in reply. Thereupon Nehemiah answered thus: "If it please the
king, and if thy servant have found favor in thy sight, that thou wouldest send
me unto Judah, unto THE CITY of my fathers' sepulchers, THAT I
MAY BUILD IT." (Nehemiah 2:5) Artaxerxes fiated the petition, and forthwith
issued the necessary orders to give effect to it. Four months later, eager hands
were busy upon the ruined walls of Jerusalem, and before the Feast of Tabernacles
the city was once more enclosed by gates and a rampart. (Nehemiah 6:15)
But, it has been urged, "The decree of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes is but
an enlargement and renewal of his first decree, as the decree of Darius confirmed
that of Cyrus." [17]
If this assertion had not the sanction of a great name, it would not deserve
even a passing notice. If it were maintained that the decree of the seventh year
of Artaxerxes was but "an enlargement and renewal" of his predecessors'
edicts, the statement would be strictly accurate. That decree was mainly an authority
to the Jews "to beautify the House of the Lord. which is in Jerusalem,"
(Ezra 7:27) in extension of the decrees by which Cyrus and Darius permitted them
to build it. The result was to produce a gorgeous shrine in the midst of a
ruined city. The movement of the seventh of Artaxerxes was chiefly a religious revival,
(Ezra 7:10) sanctioned and subsidized by royal favor; but the event of his twentieth
year was nothing less than the restoration of the autonomy of Judah. The execution
of the work which Cyrus authorized was stopped on the false charge which the enemies
of the Jews carried to the palace, that their object was to build not merely the
Temple, but the city. "A rebellious city" it had ever proved to
each successive suzerain, "for which cause" – they declared with truth,
– its destruction was decreed. "We certify the king" (they added) "that
if this city be builded again, and the walls thereof set up, thou shalt
have no portion on this side the river." [18]
To allow the building of the temple was merely to accord to a conquered race
the right to worship according to the law of their God, for the religion of the Jew
knows no worship apart from the hill of Zion. It was a vastly different event when
that people were permitted to set up again the far-famed fortifications of their
city, and entrenched behind those walls, to restore under Nehemiah the old polity
of the Judges. [19]
This was a revival of the national existence of Judah, and therefore it is
fitly chosen as the epoch of the prophetic period of the seventy weeks.
The doubt which has been raised upon the point may serve as an illustration of the
extraordinary bias which seems to govern the interpretation of Scripture, in consequence
of which the plain meaning of words is made to give place to the remote and the less
probable. And to the same cause must be attributed the doubt which some have suggested
as to the identity of the king here spoken of with Artaxerxes Longimanus. [20]
The question remains, whether the date of this edict can be accurately ascertained.
And here a most striking fact claims notice. In the sacred narrative the date of
the event which marked the beginning of the seventy weeks is fixed only by reference
to the regnal era of a Persian king. Therefore we must needs turn to secular history
to ascertain the epoch, and history dates from this very period. Herodotus,
"the father of history," was the contemporary of Artaxerxes, and visited
the Persian court. [21]
Thucydides, "the prince of historians," also was his contemporary.
In the great battles of Marathon and Salamis, the history of Persia had become interwoven
with events in Greece, by which its chronology can be ascertained and tested; and
the chief chronological eras of antiquity were current at the time. [22] No element is wanting, therefore, to enable us with accuracy
and certainty to fix the date of Nehemiah's edict.
True it is that in ordinary history the mention of "the twentieth year of Artaxerxes"
would leave in doubt whether the era of his reign were reckoned from his actual accession,
or from his father's death; [23]
but the narrative of Nehemiah removes all ambiguity upon this score. The murder
of Xerxes and the beginning of the usurper Artabanus's seven months' reign was in
July B.C. 465; the accession of Artaxerxes was in February B.C. 464; [24] One or other of these dates, therefore, must be the epoch
of Artaxerxes' reign. But as Nehemiah mentions the Chisleu (November) of one year,
and the following Nisan (March) as being both in the same year of his master's reign,
it is obvious that, as might be expected from an official of the court, he reckons
from the time of the king's accession de jure, that is from July B.C. 465.
The twentieth year of Artaxerxes therefore
began in July B.C. 446, and the commandment to rebuild
Jerusalem was given in the Nisan following. The epoch of the prophetic cycle
is thus definitely fixed as in the Jewish month Nisan of the year B.C. 445. [25]
.
CHAPTER VI. Back to Top
THE PROPHETIC YEAR
IN English ears it must sound pedantic to speak of "weeks" in any other
than the familiar acceptation of the term. But with the Jew it was far otherwise.
The effect of his laws was fitted "to render the word week capable of
meaning a seven of years almost as naturally as a seven of days. Indeed the generality
of the word would have this effect at any rate. Hence its use to denote the latter
in prophecy is not mere arbitrary symbolism, but the employment of a not unfamiliar
and easily understood language." [1]
Daniel's prayer referred to seventy years fulfilled: the prophecy which came
in answer to that prayer foretold a period of seven times seventy still to come.
But here a question arises which never has received sufficient notice in the consideration
of this subject. None will doubt that the era is a period of years; but of what kind
of year is it composed? That the Jewish year was lunisolar appears to be reasonably
certain. If tradition may be trusted, Abraham preserved in his family the year of
360 days, which he had known in his Chaldean home. [2] The month dates of the flood (150 days being specified as
the interval between the seventeenth day of the second month, and the same day of
the seventh month) appear to show that this form of year was the earliest known to
our race. Sir Isaac Newton states, that "all nations, before the just length
of the solar year was known, reckoned months by the course of the moon, and years
by the return of winter and summer, spring and autumn; and in making calendars for
their festivals, they reckoned thirty days to a lunar month, and twelve lunar months
to a year, taking the nearest round numbers, whence came the division of the ecliptic
into 360 degrees." And in adopting this statement, Sir G. C. Lewis avers that
"all credible testimony and all antecedent probability lead to the result that
a solar year containing twelve lunar months, determined within certain limits of
error, has been generally recognized by the nations adjoining the Mediterranean,
from a remote antiquity." [3]
But considerations of this kind go no further than to prove how legitimate and important
is the question here proposed. The inquiry remains whether any grounds exist for
reversing the presumption which obtains in favor of the common civil year. Now the
prophetic era is clearly seven times the seventy years of the "desolations"
which were before the mind of Daniel when the prophecy was given. Is it possible
then to ascertain the character of the years of this lesser era